| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Did someone break CVS? |
| Date: | 2002-08-05 02:23:11 |
| Message-ID: | 3D4DE18F.FBEF9051@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> In general I think that removing MAX_PG_PATH limits is a rather
> pointless exercise --- no one has yet complained that MAX_PG_PATH is too
> small.
I just mentioned it in passing; that wasn't the point of the changes.
Is there a design pattern that would ask us to enforce that length
limit? If so, I'd be happy to do so; if not, it doesn't much matter...
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gene Selkov, Jr. | 2002-08-05 02:26:16 | HASH: Out of overflow pages. Out of luck |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-05 02:10:20 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka |